Phylogenetic relationships among insect orders based on three nuclear protein-coding gene sequences

Ishiwata, Keisuke; Sasaki, Go; Ogawa, Jiro; Miyata, Takashi; Su, Zhixun

doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2010.11.001

Cited by 168 publications

(203 citation statements)

References 55 publications

(113 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

181

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In summary, our data show that Notchbased signalling does not oscillate via Delta and is not required for early segment patterning or morphological formation of segment boundaries in the cricket G. bimaculatus. Notch/Delta signalling in short-germ insect segmentation Crickets are basally branching insects with respect to beetles and flies (Ishiwata et al, 2010). Our observations therefore do not support the hypothesis that Notch-based segmentation is ancestral for insects (Fig.…”

Section: Research Articlecontrasting

confidence: 80%

“…The apparent differential requirement for zygotic Notch signalling in two different basally branching insects, the cricket G. bimaculatus (this study) and the cockroach P. americana (Pueyo et al, 2008), means that establishing the relative phylogenetic position of these two insects is crucial to determining whether Notch-based segmentation is ancestral in insects. Many phylogenetic analyses of insects yield a sister group relationship for the clades Blattodea (containing cockroaches) and Orthoptera (containing crickets) (Kristensen, 1981;Wheeler et al, 2001;Ishiwata et al, 2010). However, some intraordinal analyses support a derived position for cockroaches relative to termites and mantids, the other members of its parent clade Dictyoptera (Maekawa et al, 1999;Kjer et al, 2006;Cranston and Gullan, 2009).…”

Section: Research Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Notch/Delta signalling is not required for segment generation in the basally branching insectGryllus bimaculatus

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYArthropods and vertebrates display a segmental body organisation along all or part of the anterior-posterior axis. Whether this reflects a shared, ancestral developmental genetic mechanism for segmentation is uncertain. In vertebrates, segments are formed sequentially by a segmentation 'clock' of oscillating gene expression involving Notch pathway components. Recent studies in spiders and basal insects have suggested that segmentation in these arthropods also involves Notch-based signalling. These observations have been interpreted as evidence for a shared, ancestral gene network for insect, arthropod and bilaterian segmentation. However, because this pathway can play multiple roles in development, elucidating the specific requirements for Notch signalling is important for understanding the ancestry of segmentation. Here we show that Delta, a ligand of the Notch pathway, is not required for segment formation in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus, which retains ancestral characteristics of arthropod embryogenesis. Segment patterning genes are expressed before Delta in abdominal segments, and Delta expression does not oscillate in the pre-segmental region or in formed segments. Instead, Delta is required for neuroectoderm and mesectoderm formation; embryos missing these tissues are developmentally delayed and show defects in segment morphology but normal segment number. Thus, what initially appear to be 'segmentation phenotypes' can in fact be due to developmental delays and cell specification errors. Our data do not support an essential or ancestral role of Notch signalling in segment generation across the arthropods, and show that the pleiotropy of the Notch pathway can confound speculation on possible segmentation mechanisms in the last common bilaterian ancestor.

show abstract

Section: Research Articlecontrasting

confidence: 80%

Section: Research Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

Notch/Delta signalling is not required for segment generation in the basally branching insectGryllus bimaculatus

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent molecular and genomic phylogenetic analyses have cast doubt on the monophyly of the Paraneoptera (Yoshizawa & Johnson 2005;Ishiwata et al 2011;Misof et al 2014). Morphologically, monophyly of the Paraneoptera has been supported by many apomorphies, such as an enlarged postclypeus, an elongated lacinia detached from stipes, reduction or absence of the labial palpus, three or fewer tarsal segments, absence of a cercus, presence of abdominal trichobothria, four Malpighian tubules, and a single abdominal ganglion (Kristensen 1991;Beutel et al 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most significant conflict between morphology and phylogenomics concerns the monophyly of the Paraneoptera; phylogenomics places Psocodea as sister group of Holometabola , whereas morphological analysis places Psocodea as sister to Condylognatha (Yoshizawa & Saigusa 2001;Friedemann et al 2014;Beutel et al 2014). Although monophyly of the Paraneoptera was not supported by other molecular phylogenies (Yoshizawa & Johnson 2005;Ishiwata et al, 2011), in all cases including phylogenomics, monophyly of the Paraneoptera could not be rejected statistically. Together with the perennial "Zoraptera problem" , monophyly of the Paraneoptera has become one of the remaining controversies in the phylogeny of insect orders .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Bridging the gap between chewing and sucking in the hemipteroid insects: <br />new insights from Cretaceous amber

Yoshizawa

Lienhard

2016

Zootaxa

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The diversity of feeding apparatuses in insects far exceeds that observed in any other animal group. Consequently, tracking mouthpart innovation in insects is one of the keys toward understanding their diversification. In hemipteroid insects (clade Paraneoptera or Acercaria: lice, thrips, aphids, cicadas, bugs, etc.), the transition from chewing to piercing-and-sucking mouthparts is widely regarded as the turning point that enabled hyperdiversification of the Hemiptera, the fifth largest insect order. However, the transitional process from chewing to piercing-and-sucking in the Paraneoptera was hitherto completely unknown. In this paper, we report a well preserved mid Cretaceous amber fossil of the paraneopteran insect family Archipsyllidae and describe it as Mydiognathus eviohlhoffae gen. et sp. n. This species has elongate mandibles and styliform laciniae similar to Hemiptera but retains functional chewing mouthparts. A number of morphological characters place the Archipsyllidae as the sister group of the thrips plus hemipterans, which strongly suggests that the mouthparts of M. eviohlhoffae represent a transitional condition from primitive chewing to derived piercing-and-sucking mouthparts. The clade composed of Archipsyllidae, thrips, and hemipterans is here named Pancondylognatha, a new supra-ordinal taxon. Based on newly obtained information, we also assess the monophyly of the Paraneoptera, which was called into question by recent phylogenomic analyses. A phylogenetic analysis that includes Mydiognathus strongly supports the monophyly of the Paraneoptera.

show abstract

“…Fresh specimens were collected in the woods around the town of Pushchino, Moscow region. The phylogenetic tree of the insect class was taken from Su and coworkers (24).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diverse set of Turing nanopatterns coat corneae across insect lineages

Blagodatski

Sergeev

Kryuchkov

et al. 2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nipple-like nanostructures covering the corneal surfaces of moths, butterflies, and Drosophila have been studied by electron and atomic force microscopy, and their antireflective properties have been described. In contrast, corneal nanostructures of the majority of other insect orders have either been unexamined or examined by methods that did not allow precise morphological characterization. Here we provide a comprehensive analysis of corneal surfaces in 23 insect orders, revealing a rich diversity of insect corneal nanocoatings. These nanocoatings are categorized into four major morphological patterns and various transitions between them, many, to our knowledge, never described before. Remarkably, this unexpectedly diverse range of the corneal nanostructures replicates the complete set of Turing patterns, thus likely being a result of processes similar to those modeled by Alan Turing in his famous reaction−diffusion system. These findings reveal a beautiful diversity of insect corneal nanostructures and shed light on their molecular origin and evolutionary diversification. They may also be the first-ever biological example of Turing nanopatterns.nanocoating | cornea | insects | nanostructures | Turing

show abstract

Phylogenetic relationships among insect orders based on three nuclear protein-coding gene sequences

Cited by 168 publications

References 55 publications

Notch/Delta signalling is not required for segment generation in the basally branching insectGryllus bimaculatus

Notch/Delta signalling is not required for segment generation in the basally branching insectGryllus bimaculatus

Bridging the gap between chewing and sucking in the hemipteroid insects: <br />new insights from Cretaceous amber

Diverse set of Turing nanopatterns coat corneae across insect lineages

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About